Why is edit bugged ?
Auto Layout was mainly implemented to make device rotation easier. And it does.
From Windows tablets at 1024x768 up to 4K screens at 2550x1600
Which is why I said AutoLayout is a PITA… and its for more than JUST device rotation… its supposed to be the “cure-all” (to hear some proponets talk) to ALL device screen sizes AND orientations… I tried to implement it in a project I have going, but gave up and decided to have it create custom views for each supported device. This has the advantage that the control layouts can be TOTALLY different if desired, and not just a cram to fit rendtion.
Indeed one of the typical cases I found in my first app was that I had two pictures on top each other in portrait. With auto layout in landscape they became overstretched, and the layout completely inadequate. I ended up switching views in the Rotated event, so in landscape, the pictures be side by side.
Potentially, Auto Layout can be all things to all controls to all people, with a ton of aspirin and a two pounds manual. In practice, everybody can see here and in Apple dev forums, people completely lost, confused, and wishing they had a better solution.
I was one who wrote, and hesitated mainly because paying a three digit price for a “dead” program who the developer has divorced himself from seemed risky and had the potential to be wasted money later if issues come up with future Xojo releases (a common thing with plugins and new Xojo versions) and the product isn’t sold to someone who intended to support it down the road.
Trying to implement autolayout is a huge job.
There are aspects of it that do not exist in our implementation in the IDE like resizing controls based on their content size, hugging & compression priorities etc.
I expect we’ll need to implement those for when we move to using autolayout on non-OS X platforms UI’s though.
Since we control the runtime for that we can make all the various resizing and measuring happen at an appropriate time.
That said I do believe that the IDE could evolve along lines like what Apple did in Xcode.
They also started out with Xcode 4/5 writing the constraints & munging them as you moved controls.
That’s what the IDE is doing currently.
Apple has since moved away from doing that & lets you move controls around and eventually adds default constraints when you run if you have not set any.
That way the constraints & solving them don’t get in the way of simply creating the layout you want.
No, I’m not. You can do whatever you like.
But you spoke of ethics, and milking a dead product the way you tried to do isn’t exactly ethical in my view.
Sure, apps go End of Life all the time. No problem as there are usually other apps which can open your documents and let you continue.
However the situation is different with developer tools where people might depend on your plugin. They can’t simply replace it with another one.
You might say “they can buy the source code” - but what are they paying for without support and continued development? How do you justify the price? Where is the ethics you mentioned then?
They’re paying for the time & effort the original developer spent + the right to have & use the source code in the event the developer leaves, gets hit by a bus, etc.
That leaves them able to fix it should any bad thing happen - like the developer move on to doing something else etc.
Well, let’s be fair here. Christian wants to sell the ‘rights’ to it. No one has taken him up on it, or at least not seriously enough for him to consider it. He has a lot of time invested in developing the classes.
He has offered to upgrade anyone with the encrypted version to the full-source version for a nominal fee. I think that’s a fair offer and ethical.
My opinion is that purchasing the encrypted versions of software is a poor purchase. You are at the mercy of a developer (I’m sure someone will pipe in that I’m guilty of this too) for upgrades and support. And if Xojo changes something that breaks you absolutely have to go through the original developer. At least when you purchase the full-source code version you have the ability (perhaps not the knowledge) to fix it yourself. You are the master of your own destiny at that point.
Lots of Xojo products have been abandoned by developers over the years. Just ‘open sourcing it’ is NOT an answer for a variety of reasons. Some times it’s just not feasible and even then it doesn’t really solve any issues. Most projects live because someone had the temerity to work on it for ‘free’ and others get all the benefits.
I don’t recall getting that offer, and I also don’t see anything about a “nominal” fee.
From what I’m reading here it sounds like the full price or full difference for the source code, not “you can upgrade your licence for a handling fee”.
But then I might be wrong.
Actually, there are two possible ways to cope with content. Control Autosize, such as VB labels that increase in size when the text gets bigger, or text font autosize such as what RubberViews does.
It is possible to imagine constraints where a control would grow depending on content up to a point, then the content size will depend on the control size.
Indeed Auto Layout can be great, but it can get incredibly complex to use.
We [1701 Software] sent an inquiry when I read his blog post about obtaining the rights. It was never responded too.
That aside if he has decided not to support the product then no good can come of this thread. For those willing to share and steal you might consider causality in the future for why add-on developers leave the market.
The basic problem here was the end of life for the product with (it seems) the only option with those who payed for the encrypted version to pay the same full upgrade price as when it was an ongoing product and not at end of life. I think that is an unreasonable expectation for a development tool.
Secondly Christian could have handled it better. He should have continued supporting it while shopping around and if by a specific date he could not find someone to take it, then announce EOL and then have given registered user of the encrypted version the source if he did not want to open source it. THAT would have been a classy way to exit.
Instead he tried to play things both ways, leaving users of the encrypted classes in an unfortunate position in a kind of limbo… And apparently did not even make much of an effort to sell teh right as he did not answer your inquiry.
Yes the Xojo add-on market is very price sensitive, and yes one should buy the source code version to be safe if one can justify the cost, but the way this was handled certainly does not incline one to trust 3rd party Xojo add-on vendors.
(And I say this as a VERY minor one myself)
- Karen
Yep. I’m to blame. I just rectified that.
[quote=179693:@Karen Atkocius]The basic problem here was the end of life for the product with (it seems) the only option with those who payed for the encrypted version to pay the same full upgrade price as when it was an ongoing product and not at end of life. I think that is an unreasonable expectation for a development tool.
Secondly Christian could have handled it better. He should have continued supporting it while shopping around and if by a specific date he could not find someone to take it, then announce EOL and then have given registered user of the encrypted version the source if he did not want to open source it. THAT would have been a classy way to exit.
Instead he tried to play things both ways, leaving users of the encrypted classes in an unfortunate position in a kind of limbo… And apparently did not even make much of an effort to sell teh right as he did not answer your inquiry.
Yes the Xojo add-on market is very price sensitive, and yes one should buy the source code version to be safe if one can justify the cost, but the way this was handled certainly does not incline one to trust 3rd party Xojo add-on vendors.
(And I say this as a VERY minor one myself)
- Karen[/quote]
Xojo add-on developers are just like any other businessmen. They are human. Some even may have a lot on their mind. Last year has seen the departure of Elastic Window, but also of Studio Stable. In both circumstances, it seems the authors had a lot of personal grudge and for whatever reason did not seem too inclined to think about their customers. But maybe it has to do with unreasonable expectations, both in terms of results (Xojo is a relatively small market), and in terms of recognition. In both cases, it seems a lot of ego was at play.
On the other hand, there are remarkable third party vendors here, who care for their customers, provide excellent and consistent support, and have done so for years. Christian Schmitz is a vivid example. So is Sam Rowlands. Bob Keeney also provides excellent service. I am talking only of those I did business with, but am sure they are not alone. I should add Phillip Zedalis who provides not a piece of software but an excellent VPS service. And there are all the others who contribute to the Xojo ecological niche.
Being myself essentially an end user software vendor accustomed to “sell and forget” with most customers never asking anything, I am amazed by the relatively low price they charge for the amount of service they provide.
[quote=179693:@Karen Atkocius]The basic problem here was the end of life for the product with (it seems) the only option with those who payed for the encrypted version to pay the same full upgrade price as when it was an ongoing product and not at end of life. I think that is an unreasonable expectation for a development tool.
[/quote]
It’s easy to point fingers at Christian and demonstrate how it could have been done better. There’s good cause for reflection of why he did it in the first place as well.
I believe the OP asking the “community” for a copy of the source code was misguided and inappropriate. Sad that someone was potentially willing to do so…
How does anyone expect quality add-ons to be produced and maintained when the expectations are set so high?
- Must not anger Xojo, Inc.
- Must support said product forever.
- Must provide free telephone/email support forever.
- Must update for every change Xojo or the platforms make.
- Must sell all source code at a reasonable price, ideally in a “bundle”
There’s room here for a serious discussion about what the community expects from the third party market. Unfortunately all we get is “can somebody share the source code to somebody else’s blood, sweat, and tears.”
Yet when open source projects spring up or someone like Michel/Karen/Tim/Kim/etc/etc/etc/etc offers a workable solution for free to solve a real problem NOBODY contributes, submits patches, or even notices. Tough crowd.
– Edited because the foul language sensor is very sensitive.
That is probably why my own control autoresize solution won’t be free, but commercial.
Nothing wrong about sharing snippets, but when a solution has required a lot of work, it makes sense for users to participate.
I also have a lot of issues with the lack of respect for intellectual property. How can developers who expect to be paid for their software turn around and blatantly pirate others work ? Double standard ?
An author should be free to decide or not to open source his work, no matter if he still sells or not. Sure, when a third party vendor stops providing his tools, it is unfortunate, and developers who depend on them are at a loss. But none of us should be expected to support products until the end of times.
I was a customer of at least one of this forum member back in 1989. Should I blame him from not carrying his address book anymore ? I think not. I have discontinued selling quite a few fonts I used to sell back in the early nineties. I frankly resent it when I see some of them spread as free for download by spandrels who do not respect my intellectual property. Piracy is piracy, is piracy, is piracy.
I’m the one Michel is referring to, I think. However the original author pass away in 1996(?). I took it over in 1998.
Let me clear up a few things here and add some other comments since I started this:
1.) I never received an e-mail from Christian or Pariahware that Elastic Window was going away. Nothing. I only found out about it this past week when I did some searched in the forums for it and found a post that referenced Christian’s blog post. So Mr. Miller - you did not tell your customers.
2.) To address Phillip Zedalis criticism of me asking for the source code: The only reason why I did that was because I had not heard back from Christian. In my mind if a developer truly abandon’s something and won’t respond to e-mails about it, I don’t feel that it is out of line for others to share what they have. I’d rather pay the developer for it, but I’d also rather not be stuck in the cold. In my mind this has never been about “stealing” Christian’s code. It was rather a move out of desperation to be able to continue to get value out of the investment that I made in Christian’s code.
3.) Christian and I have corresponded via e-mail and I have paid him the $50 to get the source code to the classes. So my immediate needs are solved.
4.) I had been considering developing my own classes as a way around this if Christian had not gotten back to me. I’m happy to see Michael has done something and I’ll check that out.
5.) I discussed with Christian the possibility of buying and continuing support for the rights to the software. He has stated what he would like to get for it and I am considering it. With that in mind, I’m asking the community if continuing development of this software is something you guys would like to see. It’s a fairly decent upfront chunk of money I would need to pay him. Is it worth it? I don’t know. Do you guys want it continued? With Michael’s classes, maybe the need is not so great. So I’m looking for feedback from the community on the idea of continuing this product.
Thanks,
Jon
Yes, you are 
I did like your product a lot. But times have changed …
From the discussion that prompted me to release RubberViews, it appeared I was not alone to have my own solution. Makes sense. Nature hates a void.
Fact is with the arrival of tablets on one hand and high dpi screens on the other, designing for one resolution has become impossible. I look forward for your suggestions. Already from posting about auto layout yesterday has given me some additional ideas. I believe it is possible to go beyond global resize, keep ratio and ignore. It is indeed possible add some measure of Auto Layout, and I shall introduce that in a next release.
[quote=179741:@Jon Ogden]
5.) I discussed with Christian the possibility of buying and continuing support for the rights to the software. He has stated what he would like to get for it and I am considering it. With that in mind, I’m asking the community if continuing development of this software is something you guys would like to see. It’s a fairly decent upfront chunk of money I would need to pay him. Is it worth it? I don’t know. Do you guys want it continued? With Michael’s classes, maybe the need is not so great. So I’m looking for feedback from the community on the idea of continuing this product.[/quote]
I think you would be taking a huge risk. Those most interested probably have the source code already.
As for the rest? They didn’t buy the source code because for whatever reason they could not justify the expense. Now they have some plugin which might or might not work soon. Are they going to risk using it? Are they willing to spend more and maybe end up in the same position?
I used it in one project a long time ago. It didn’t work well for me (which is most likely entirely my fault) and if I had the need now I would probably come up with my own solution.
The reason for that is not that I’m a better programmer now than I used to be, but that due to my experience here I’m now MUCH more hesitant to buy from single developers.
I know that MBS has contingency plans if Christian should get run over by a car, and I seem to recall Bob does the same, so I have no problem buying from them.
But before I buy another plugin from a single developer I would want to know what his/her plans are should he/she abandon the product.